vgwfandomcom-20200215-history
Forum:Discussing Standards
As mentioned in Forum:Tabber Infobox, a discussion on standards needs to happen. The standards now will be different from the standards when there were just two users. To be discussed Feel free to add to the list * Image size * Page order * Galleries * Policy * Categories * Signatures Discussion Image size As for the image sizing, (I'm guessing this for the infoboxes) I'd say the overall size of the infobox needs to be a little wider. While Oasis doesn't offer much space for the content, the infobox hopefully won't drag down too low if it's wider. I'm not saying make if 70% or so, I'm simply saying, make it larger so that there won't be a problem with not just images going out of it, but the text from dragging too low. In addition, to what I feel on the infoxes, see below. Other than infoboxes, there shouldn't be much of a problem with image sizing. — Wattz2000 01:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC) Page order There are several different points with page order that need to be discussed. Please note these are very broad designs and need work on deciding what goes exactly where. As I've discussed with Minish Link before, the page order for Console pages should go as follows: As for how an actual game article should go, it should look something like this: Mind you, most articles have yet to fill in these sections. For company articles, also as discussed with Minish, here's what was come up with: For characters, this might need more work since we haven't really dove deep with these types of articles yet. So, anything you have to say on these? — Wattz2000 01:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC) :Overall I like the setup you have suggested for these page types. For video games though, I prefer it more like this: Intro paragraph. Plot Gameplay How to play the game. Intro paragraph. Development History on the game. Plot Gameplay How to play the game. Modes Modes (subsection of Gameplay) Reception Well, the game's reception. Gallery Images of gameplay, box arts (depends on infobox), et cetera. Categories. Italic title. :However, that's just me. I'm perfectly content with the organized format that Wattz2000 has suggested. Personally all that matters is that it is neatly organized for the convenience of the readers. – iSodium 01:30, April 20, 2012 (UTC) Galleries I think galleries are an easy way for n00by users to add images to articles. Galleries can be easily modified, offer simplistic code, and don't look that bad on the actual page (unless fancy templates get in the way). In addition to Forum:Tabber Infobox‎‎, I agree with Jazzi, and have since about day 1 with the infobox as it wouldn't load at all, (problem on my end with the tabber extension) but that issue has past. Though, as Jazzi said, the the infobox (and tabber in general) has a slow load rate and can be bad for a vital page tool to have a slow load rate. I support a move to change the infobox to galleries. — Wattz2000 01:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC) Policy An overall standard and manual of style would be great to have. As I put below, there should be a signature policy. Though not a problem on wiki at this time, I think it'd be a best practice to have a user image policy as well. I've seen (and work on) several wikis with problems with user images. Though, as I said, at the moment, this isn't a problem. More or less, however, there's not much on policy that would be mentioned in my other posts on this forum. — Wattz2000 01:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC) :I'm thinking one or none. And by none I mean photobucket linking. :I agree that we need more added to the policy. A manual of style would really be a welcome addition. :As for the user images, I think that it should be limited to 1 or 2 user images per user though I would preferably strive for a maximum of one. I don't necessarily think that we should not allow user images (just in case you were thinking of that) as it lets the user express themselves a bit (I'm talking about pictures like fanart and such). However I do think that we should abolish user images that show real-life images of the user or something similar as it starts to make the wiki feel a bit more like a social network rather than a source of information. If you weren't referring to the pictures that users upload for the sole purpose of posting to their User page (or anywhere else in the userspace), then just completely disregard this paragraph. – iSodium 01:22, April 20, 2012 (UTC) ::Ah, yes, images of the real-life user should definitely be removed on sight. And, yes, this is referring to images that go on userspace pages. — Wattz2000 01:30, April 20, 2012 (UTC) :::Yeah, this was a minor problem with some users on Mythology Wiki, but has since been eradicated. And that's good as I have misunderstood people before. – iSodium 01:40, April 20, 2012 (UTC) Categories Category pages seem to already be in order. The only real issue with categories at the moment are the image categorization which can be done in time. Though the category pages themselves could be jazzed up a bit by linking to possible similar categories/articles, more information, and the such. The overall category system seems to work fine but as the articles grow, they could get a little large. Not sure if its a good investment for root categories (in other words, categories for "All games" or something that don't interfere with the current "games" category) as they can get overzealous and be a pain to go through. — Wattz2000 01:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC) :In addition, a more concise image categorization system should be implemented too. — Wattz2000 00:50, April 23, 2012 (UTC) Signatures I'll be honest as I've never been and a fan of fancy signatures that primarily rely on user subpages and large bits of code, but I really don't care either way — it's just a signature. Though, more so, I hate images in signatures (unless at a very small text-size) and would appreciate them being outlawed in a way. : P I also think that signatures must include a link to either their userpage, user talk, or contributions page. — Wattz2000 01:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC) :That's mainly what I had thought. Images shouldn't be in signatures, they're obnoxious and ugly. I personally would like to do away with box-like signatures. A basic text one should work, and will work here. If you need to make a subpage for your signature if you want to make it fancier, kind of how I have with mine, then make it. As long as it's in userspace.